SpeedyV6

Study Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 9:10 p.m. ET

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

''Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment,'' according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.

The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.

The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.

Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.

The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.

Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.

Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.

Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.

------

On the Net:

Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/busi...gewanted=print

biker

But the tree huggers/ethanol lobby will demand ethanol use despite data like this.

Belzebutt

Why would "the tree huggers" demand use of this if there are better renewable fuels out there? I understand why the ethanol lobby would, that's what they're paid to do.

Loseit

iTrader: (1)

i agree. We do have to think of a better way. I think the internal combustion engine is the single greatest invention ever but, it won't be shit w/o fuel.

I wonder if we don't have the technology yet to make this stuff more economically. It would be an interesting study to see.

Bill Hook

Why are they demanding fuel cells and hydrogen, as these, like biodiesel and EtOH, are pollution reallocation schemes as well, using polluting energy produced at a few central locations to produce "clean" fuels or reagents whose production involves greater energy inputs than can be recovered from the outputs when used vehicles?